If students had guns would the 'terrorist' have been shot dead in under a minute?

[asand1]

9 hours ago, Velvet Revolver said:

why couldnt the security guard shoot the culprit in the legs to immobilize him

Because life isn't Hollywood. The knee or leg presents such a small target, and even with a successful hit you aren't guaranteed an incapacitated target. If you have to draw on a subject it is kill or be killed. If you are not protecting the life of yourself or others there is no room for mercy. 

[JAKEBAB]

5 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

well I wasn't aware of that , suppose what I knew was out of date

Australia wha more guns now then there were before the gun buy back. It's a common misconception that Australia is this gun free happy country. 

[Murdoch]

11 hours ago, Thunderpup said:

I think a lot of that has to do with the adrenaline going.   they shoot until the target has stopped moving, but because of gravity and inertia the target may keep moving Even if they have been sufficiently injured. 

 

Sadly cops don't get much regular range training as they are expected to foot the bill for ammo except during  yearly quals.

Yeah, it's lack of training that is the problem. It's almost impossible to train all your police force to high levels, if all the standard beat cops are armed. It's much easier in places like the UK, where the civilian population is unarmed, so we can have highly trained specialist armed response units, that are trained to shoot 1-2 rounds then assess the situation.

 

It's worth noting though, we also have a "shoot to kill" tactic, that is very rarely used, needs special permission, but is used for imminent terrorist attacks.

[rn8686]

4 hours ago, rmac52 said:

We're not talking about giving random people guns.  

I'm a college student and a gun owner.  I have had a gun license since I was 18.  I have had guns for more than 8 years.  

All of the people I know with a gun license are responsible and I would trust them with a gun on campus.

Just becuase everyone you know can use a gun responsibly, doesn't mean everyone will. The law needs to move at the speed of the slowest person, or we get situations like this. 

[rn8686]

3 hours ago, JAKEBAB said:

Australia wha more guns now then there were before the gun buy back. It's a common misconception that Australia is this gun free happy country. 

Thats a little misleading, most of those guns are owned by a single owner who has multiple and the number of guns would have been much higher had there never been a gun ban, but this still goes to show you can still allow guns and have reasonable legislation restricting them. 

[rn8686]

5 hours ago, rmac52 said:

I completely agree.  That's why more strict laws that only affecting law abiding gun owners make no sense.  I am requiered to store my guns in a locked cabinet.  In my case I store my guns in a gun safe.  If you can break into my house and steal one of my guns you are really determined and are going to find a gun no matter the laws.

I can buy a black market gun for around $500.  Why would I break into someones house and try to crack their safe if I can just buy one?

Thats what these laws are trying to stop, the easy access to guns on the "Black market". Plenty of people do not store there guns safely, there are also straw buyers. 

[Sauron]

Yes, and we would have dozens of victims caught in the crossfire of untrained and terrified students.

[Misanthrope]

14 hours ago, Velvet Revolver said:

why couldnt the security guard shoot the culprit in the legs to immobilize him, then the culprit would be spending literally life in prison, not life being 10 yr paroled, but life is life down there. the guard will be a hero now.

Why couldn't just...not run motherfuckers over with his car and stab people though?

 

Seriously cops or not, legal carry or not, whatever: you forfeit your right not to be killed when you're actively trying to fucking kill others yourself.

[Misanthrope]

44 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, and we would have dozens of victims caught in the crossfire of untrained and terrified students.

This is particularly funny seeing how OP was asking for incredibly precise shooting of the legs to immobilize. Yeah that'd work: have untrained civilians try to shoot legs let alone hit your intended target.

[RocketFarmer]

Don't think, given the circumstances, that it would have been resolved faster.  But it's possible. 

 

The 2nd Amendment is primarily intended to protect citizens from an oppressive government.  Typically the first acts of tyrants is to restrict speech and disarm the populace.  Also why 1st Amendment is free speech, press, religion, assembly, etc. 

 

Lot of hyperbole going on with respect to guns.  Claims that everyone should or should not own or carry a gun are equally ludicrous.  Gun ownership also carries with it gun responsibility and liability.  Most people also know the consequences of killing another person.  So what we're left with are the mentally deficient or deranged who want to kill people - likely less than a percent of a percent.  Terrorists make up a subset of that population. 

 

The perpetrator of this specific attack used a vehicle and a knife.  While he was a Somali muslim, and ISIS recently called for lone wolf knife attacks, I don't believe he's an organized terrorist.  As facts come in that may change. 

 

I believe the right to defend yourself against deranged people out there should not be restricted, within reason of course.  You cannot rely of police to be there to protect you.  It's why the wealthy have private security.  The rest of us have to rely on the expectation that the people around us are good.  That's the risk we all take.  So with that risk, carrying a firearm offers some insurance.  It also carries a ton of liability and responsibility in the proper use.  Each person has to weigh that for themselves.  

 

You also make laws for people who follow laws, not for criminals who don't.  Laws are just the rules we make for our society to function.  Most societies already have a law against murder and attempted murder.  That would cover murder by gun, vehicle, knife, etc.  Gun laws, except to help enforce responsible ownership and liability, only hurt the average person.   

[Deli]

Gun isn't enough. We need hand grenade, rocket launcher to defend ourselves.

[Misanthrope]

36 minutes ago, RocketFarmer said:

 Terrorists make up a subset of that population [the mentally ill]. 

No. Terrorism as when it's driven by ideologies is usually perpetrated by sane people that just follow a regrettable consequence that is taught by an ideology like Islam.

 

And before you try to bring the usual apologetics I am going to take the liberty of preempting you: The ideology itself calls for acts of terror and is directly supported and called for in the Quran and the Hadiths, you can hear about it from a former Muslim who has read the Quran and Hadiths in Arabic so those "misinterpreted!" refutations are also null and void:

So no, you don't have to be insane if you grew up on a society that teaches you to hate jews, hate the west, subdue infidels and other faiths, kill apostates, etc. And when you have passive support from Muslims in general that condone or excuse acts of terrorism, it doesn't takes someone who's mentally ill, just someone who has never known better and takes it to the ultimate consequence.

[LukeS]

Before I post, here are my credentials:
I'm currently an EMT-B with background 3 in martial arts, self defense, and wilderness/urban survival expertise and trainer. I'm an unprofessional social engineer and an unprofessional behavioral analyst. I have done over 3 formal policy debates about gun control, for both the positive and negative side. I fully support the second amendment "as is" without any add-ons. (The second amendment stating as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") Which I interpret as was the case in 1776: Freedom from an oppressing monarchy creates the necessity for a militia, whether civilian, government, well organized, or unorganized.

 

 

*whew* that's over.  

That said, I do not think arming every student on every campus is a solution. In fact, it would create a greater problem. However, I do believe you have a point. Screening and allowing guns on campus ought to be allowed, as long as the college or university has control over whether it is appropriate or not. Texas has multiple instances of civilians withholding armed robbers because open carry is permitted at banks. On the other spectrum, England has had a 'no gun' law (excluding licensed hunting, flare, and harpoon) for multiple years (in which, ironically, the harpoon murders rose).

 

In the end, I think that it is necessary to admit the following:
1) there is terrorism in America

2) that terrorism is caused because of the basis of Islam (read the Quran. It's a violent book. I have nothing against muslims, however I do strongly disagree with their doctrine (the 47th book, I believe it is which is known as the more 'violent' of them all- it calls for a purge of non-muslims) [edit: I am not saying that all muslims are terrorists (that would be a logical and psychological fallacy), however I am stating that a true muslim, if following the laws of the religion, would in fact not appreciate the coexistence of religion. Radicalization is different from religion in the modern era, however.

3) Guns ought to be allowed in America because it is the outlet to freedom from tyranny

4) There are 'bad' people who have bad mental states.

5) Gun control will only open a black market to obtain fire arms

6) The only way to control the gun population is both unethical and a breach of the peace

7) America was made on the basis of freedom of celebrating Christian religion away from British Catholicism (this is important due to the fact that religion is around 95% of the causes of terrorism)

8) College students are dumb and drunk half of the time (Ask any EMT who's had a college campus call...)

9) Arming everyone in America is dumb

10) Contradicting or denying any of the following facts is the route to not only fascism but utter stupidity. 

 

oh, and:

11) I have better things to do than create lists and waste my time on this forum.

 

-LukeS
I_M_3rd

[LukeS]

28 minutes ago, Deli said:

Gun isn't enough. We need hand grenade, rocket launcher to defend ourselves.

Curious, how do you think that this would be helpful? I understand the sarcasm, but there needs to be reason behind the madness.

[Deli]

2 minutes ago, LukeS said:

Curious, how do you think that this would be helpful? I understand the sarcasm, but there needs to be reason behind the madness.

Some of the reasons people justify carrying hand guns do apply to more powerful weapons, in my opinion.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Why couldn't just...not run motherfuckers over with his car and stab people though?

 

Seriously cops or not, legal carry or not, whatever: you forfeit your right not to be killed when you're actively trying to fucking kill others yourself.

Well, not really - that's "eye for an eye" level. Regardless of what the guy is doing I think the cops should do everything in their power to avoid his/her death, as well as the death of civilians of course. I can understand the "he gave me no choice" situation where not killing him would have almost certainly resulted in others losing their life, but killing him should be the absolute last resort if not considered unacceptable.

[LukeS]

Just now, Deli said:

Some of the reasons people justify carrying hand guns do apply to more powerful weapons, in my opinion.

Yes, I would agree. However not all people are naturally 'good' and therefore the suppression of High Explosive Fire Arms must be implemented for the safety of all citizens.

[Sauron]

35 minutes ago, Deli said:

Gun isn't enough. We need hand grenade, rocket launcher to defend ourselves.

Why not nuclear weaponry?

 

Oh wait, that's exactly what we're stockpiling.

[LukeS]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Well, not really - that's "eye for an eye" level. Regardless of what the guy is doing I think the cops should do everything in their power to avoid his/her death, as well as the death of civilians of course. I can understand the "he gave me no choice" situation where not killing him would have almost certainly resulted in others losing their life, but killing him should be the absolute last resort if not considered unacceptable.

You shoot to kill. All officers are supposed to be trained that a gun is only used when non-lethal force is inappropriate or would be deemed uneventful. Using a tazer or pepper spray would probably be more dangerous than a high velocity fire arm. There was reason and causation for lethal force, and this method I approve on for this circumstance. (at this instance while civs still have no information)

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Sauron said:

Well, not really - that's "eye for an eye" level. Regardless of what the guy is doing I think the cops should do everything in their power to avoid his/her death, as well as the death of civilians of course. I can understand the "he gave me no choice" situation where not killing him would have almost certainly resulted in others losing their life, but killing him should be the absolute last resort if not considered unacceptable.

I don't think it's eye for an eye: if you're a hold up man at a bank or licour shop and have actively threatened but haven't harmed anybody, then sure bring up the gas, the rubber bullets, have at it.

 

If you're actively attacking people with a knife you need to be fucking shot to immediately stop you, provided line of fire is reasonable enough (of course I am not advocating mowing down civilians with machine guns to try to get one crazy guy that's currently on top of them with a knife). But to say "Oh we must try to shoot his leg! tackle him!"

 

No, we must stop him from doing what he's doing at all cost, yes that includes lethal fucking force.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, LukeS said:

Yes, I would agree. However not all people are naturally 'good' and therefore the suppression of High Explosive Fire Arms must be implemented for the safety of all citizens.

So, giving a hand gun to a person who isn't "naturally good" is not a problem, right?

[Deli]

1 minute ago, LukeS said:

Yes, I would agree. However not all people are naturally 'good' and therefore the suppression of High Explosive Fire Arms must be implemented for the safety of all citizens.

I'm just happy I live in a society that I don't have to worry someone will pull out a gun during a confrontation. 

[LukeS]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I don't think it's eye for an eye: if you're a hold up man at a bank or licour shop and have actively threatened but haven't harmed anybody, then sure bring up the gas, the rubber bullets, have at it.

 

If you're actively attacking people with a knife you need to be fucking shot to immediately stop you, provided line of fire is reasonable enough (of course I am not advocating mowing down civilians with machine guns to try to get one crazy guy that's currently on top of them with a knife). But to say "Oh we must try to shoot his leg! tackle him!"

 

No, we must stop him from doing what he's doing at all cost, yes that includes lethal fucking force.

Again, officers are trained shoot to kill. A gun is a tool, same as a police baton, pepper spray, or rubber bullets are. Trust me, when you're in the heat of the moment, you can do crazy things. I'm not going to judge an action of one man based upon being a 'hero'. You saved a life. Don't punish the man for it.

 

 

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Why not nuclear weaponry?

 

Oh wait, that's exactly what we're stockpiling.

I'm detecting a red herring fallacy....

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, LukeS said:

I'm detecting a red herring fallacy....

I'm not detecting a sense of humour

[LukeS]

Just now, Sauron said:

I'm not detecting a sense of humour

That is correct. I don't have friends either.